We Are All in It Together, Clinton Says

[Gan]

Clinton: Shared Prosperity Should Replace 'On Your Own' Society

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) -- Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.


The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.

"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

Clinton spoke at the Manchester School of Technology, which trains high school students for careers in the construction, automotive, graphic arts and other industries. The school highlighted one of the nine goals she outlined: increasing support for alternative schools and community colleges.

"We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this," she said. "Our country cannot run without the people who have the skills that are taught in this school."

Beyond education, Clinton said she would reduce special breaks for corporations, eliminate tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas and open up CEO pay to greater public scrutiny.

Clinton also said she would help people save more money by expanding and simplifying the earned income tax credit; create new jobs by pursuing energy independence; and ensure that every American has affordable health insurance.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070529/clinton_economy.html?.v=1
___________________________________________

On the alternative high school idea for vocational focus I am in agreement. There needs to be more alternatives to education for young adults who do not wish to go to college for a degree, alternatives that can be enhanced by specialty high schools that students can attend at their choice (not mandated through tests or evaluations).

The better that young adults can be equipped when entering into the market/economy/world on their own will mean fewer will turn to more nefarious means as a last resort when they stumble. It also allows for a greater head start in success in job experience, history, and transferrable skills as they live through multiple careers in a lifetime.

The last two paragraphs that outline some of her other goals I find difficult supporting without knowing more of her intentions. For now it just makes for a good soundbite for her.

[Atlanteax]

Vocational Schools and opening up CEO pay to greater public scrunities are must-have reforms.

[Back]

Add cheaper education and universal healthcare.

I’m all for responsible capitalism that includes all members of society. United we stand.

[Atlanteax]

Add cheaper education and universal healthcare.

I’m all for responsible capitalism that includes all members of society. United we stand.

The greatest irony about education is that college tutition will drop 30-40%, if not more, if the Federal Govenment ended its student financial aid programs.

Demand would drop, Colleges will not be able to overcharge ... alternative career routes for the non-academically-included would be the mentioned trade schools.

[Stanley Burrell]

I remember the great accomplishments of H. Clinton when estranged husband entrusted her with domestic welfare :rolleyes:

[TheEschaton]

30-40% of 36,000 schools leaves the tuition at least 21,600 left to pay for, which is still impossible for most people with absolutely no help. With loans, kids can attend Harvard if they want to, and use their future earning potential to pay back those loans.

How would demand drop for schools? Because people wouldn't be able to afford them? THat's a rather classist "sacrifice" you're willing to make.

-TheE-

[Landrion]

30-40% of 36,000 schools leaves the tuition at least 21,600 left to pay for, which is still impossible for most people with absolutely no help. With loans, kids can attend Harvard if they want to, and use their future earning potential to pay back those loans.

How would demand drop for schools? Because people wouldn't be able to afford them? THat's a rather classist "sacrifice" you're willing to make.

-TheE-

But isnt that Hillary's point above? That alternative educations are just as important and valuable to our society (mechanics, graphic designers) and that we shouldnt view people who do not go to college as "less" than those that do?

[TheEschaton]

But what about the kids who want to be nuclear physicists because they really enjoy it, and they need a college degree to do that, but can't because they don't have money and there's no financial aid to speak of?

[CrystalTears]

But what about the kids who want to be nuclear physicists because they really enjoy it, and they need a college degree to do that, but can't because they don't have money and there's no financial aid to speak of?
Get a job that you were able to get from attenting the vocational school, then with the money you make from the job, go to school for the nuclear physicist career.

There is nothing stopping someone from doing what they really want to do if they want it bad enough.

[Back]

But isnt that Hillary's point above? That alternative educations are just as important and valuable to our society (mechanics, graphic designers) and that we shouldnt view people who do not go to college as "less" than those that do?

David Ogilvy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ogilvy) was an immigrant to America from Surrey who did not attend college yet revolutionized advertising in this country and became very, very rich. One of the founders of Ogilvy and Mathers.

[Atlanteax]

But what about the kids who want to be nuclear physicists because they really enjoy it, and they need a college degree to do that, but can't because they don't have money and there's no financial aid to speak of?

Scholarships.

Let the American Citizens who *believe* that anyone who shows the determination and the aptitude for becoming a nuclear physicist, set up a scholarship fund.

Let them pool their resources to set up programs that ensures that gifted students get money.

.

Additionally, Corporations will also move in to fill the void with Tutition by offering to pay for some of it, if said student signs a long-term commitment to work for said company (ie 5 years).

.

It *does not have to be* the Federal Government, and the Taxation of the American public at large.

.

Also, Alumni associations, who take pride in who are part of their programs, will also step up to the plate.

.

Have faith that there are viable alternative solutions that does not involve mandated socialism at the federal level.

[TheEschaton]

You have far too much faith in corporations and individuals in general.

People (and the corporations based on natural law principles) are inherently selfish. This isn't a moral judgment, it's merely an observation of natural law. All animals are greedy. Without a socialist system which mandates citizen participation in society, IE, allowing sharing among citizens, people move towards complete selfish behavior...at which point society ceases to exist, and we live instead in a country of 300 million plus states of the Self.

What of the kids who want to be something which requires college level work that no one wants to fund? That there's no scholarships for because no one recognizes the validity of the work?

Furthermore, what makes you think the average American high school invokes the true potential a kid might have?

You claim to be "freeing" people to do what they want, but in reality, you're simply restricting those with no money even more.

-TheE-

[Gan]

You have far too much faith in corporations and individuals in general.

People (and the corporations based on natural law principles) are inherently selfish. This isn't a moral judgment, it's merely an observation of natural law. All animals are greedy. Without a socialist system which mandates citizen participation in society, IE, allowing sharing among citizens, people move towards complete selfish behavior...at which point society ceases to exist, and we live instead in a country of 300 million plus states of the Self.

What of the kids who want to be something which requires college level work that no one wants to fund? That there's no scholarships for because no one recognizes the validity of the work?

Furthermore, what makes you think the average American high school invokes the true potential a kid might have?

You claim to be "freeing" people to do what they want, but in reality, you're simply restricting those with no money even more.

-TheE-

This was just on the news last night...

Texas business puts employee children through medical school on full scholarships.


What if your boss offered to put your child through medical school?

That's the deal one Texas-based businessman made with its employees, and the generous offer is making some very visible changes.


http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou070530_ac_visiblechanges.249d91a7.html

[Parkbandit]

You have far too much faith in corporations and individuals in general.

People (and the corporations based on natural law principles) are inherently selfish. This isn't a moral judgment, it's merely an observation of natural law. All animals are greedy. Without a socialist system which mandates citizen participation in society, IE, allowing sharing among citizens, people move towards complete selfish behavior...at which point society ceases to exist, and we live instead in a country of 300 million plus states of the Self.
-TheE-

I completely agree with your observation of natural law.. but your conclusions are not based upon history. You claim that if we take the money made by some and give it to others that everything will be happy and rosey. Let me tell you right now, that has never been the case. Show me were this communist model has ever worked in the real world. Humans ARE greedy.. what makes you think that when they are forced to give up their hard earned money that it will somehow change? Let me tell you right now.. if this crackpot plan comes to fruition.. you will hear a giant sucking sound of companies running to other countries to save billions of dollars. I know I will create a holding company for my small business to avoid this redistribution of wealth. I hear the Caymens are great.

And speaking of human observations... let's just say we do the Clinton plan of taxing the wealthy so much that we even out the wealth of this country.. what again is the incentive for me to go out and work? Why? If I sit on my ass and play Playstation 3 everyday.. the Government will provide for me. Why should I take some self responsibility to provide for my family when the Government will? Why would I go out and work hard everyday so that the majority of my wealth is taken from me to give to some slug on a couch somewhere?

[CrystalTears]

There has to be some kind of compromise. I'd rather the rich be able to contribute to needy they choose, preferably to their immediate community rather than letting the government decide who to give their money to, and the middle and poor classes still have to work hard to get somewhere and not be handed something for doing nothing.

[Atlanteax]

You have far too much faith in corporations and individuals in general.

People (and the corporations based on natural law principles) are inherently selfish.
-TheE-

It is in Corporations' best interests to have an educated work force.

American Corporations are run by Americans, and I would consider it a safe assumption that they would prefer to be hiring American employees (out of a sense of nationalism).

Granted, there are going to be *some* instances of out-sourcing, but an innumerable number of US-based corporations are locally/regionally centered, where they are dependent on local employees and local customers. (You'd also have to factor in preferences on US customers to be purchasing from US companies, as long the goods/services are not signficantly inferior to their foreign counterparts).

But to reinforce the main point, corporations would most assuredly help co-sponsor trade schools to ensure that they can hire an educated workforce (where they will recapture their human capital investment with long-term contacts). Bio-technology will sponsor medical researchers, Hospital Networks will sponsor nurses/doctors.

So for a corporation to thrive on its own, it will act in its best interest, and will do the above.

[TheEschaton]

PB, you raise an interesting point, but that's a philosophical debate in general. If we're pushing for morality in a situation (IE, people who freely share with those in need, in this case), should stopgap measures like mandate social contribution be used to plug the gap until then?

I'd say so, apparently you'd say no.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

PB, you raise an interesting point, but that's a philosophical debate in general. If we're pushing for morality in a situation (IE, people who freely share with those in need, in this case), should stopgap measures like mandate social contribution be used to plug the gap until then?

I'd say so, apparently you'd say no.

-TheE-

It's not a philosophical debate at all.. it's something that has been tried, but has never, ever worked... because humans ARE greedy. There has to be an incentive out there for someone to go out and bust his ass everyday. My incentive for busting my ass for the past 28 years has been that I enjoy having nice things and providing for my family.

Your fantasy world is based upon people like me going out everyday and working hard so that I can provide not just for my family, but for one or two more. Why would I ever want to live in a society that takes away someone's hard earned money to give to someone who doesn't work as hard? I believe we have a fiscal responsibility to help those who are physically or mentally unable to provide for themselves. I believe we do need a welfare type system that takes care of our unfortunate citizens. I do NOT believe that we should just put all the money in the pot and divide it among those who work and those who are too lazy to work. It's never worked before, it won't work now. The Government is the LEAST effective means of doing anything remotely like this.

[CrystalTears]

The Government is the LEAST effective means of doing anything remotely like this.
AMEN

[Gan]

There has to be some kind of compromise. I'd rather the rich be able to contribute to needy they choose, preferably to their immediate community rather than letting the government decide who to give their money to, and the middle and poor classes still have to work hard to get somewhere and not be handed something for doing nothing.

Some do actually, through many philanthropic charities, organizations, and scholarships. It just isnt handy to bring up politically when you're preaching communism or socialism.

[CrystalTears]

I meant as opposed to taxing the shit out of the rich and then handing it to the poor. I thought we were over the Robin Hood phase. :D

[Gan]

Robin Hood needs to remain a fantasy. Its proven not to work as a social program, regardless of what the RICH democrat politicians espouse.

Lets see them support a tax on their wealth first and foremost before they attempt to drag the citizenship into their schemes.

[TheEschaton]

Well, then, PB, do you say we should not aspire to an ideal of communality, and should just fall back on our inherently greedy ways?

I'd like to think the human race is striving for more than something than its animal nature.

And like I keep saying: how many of those contributors would still contribute if those donations weren't tax deductible (IE, if charity wasn't self-interested, as it is now)?

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

It's not a philosophical debate at all.. it's something that has been tried, but has never, ever worked... because humans ARE greedy. There has to be an incentive out there for someone to go out and bust his ass everyday. My incentive for busting my ass for the past 28 years has been that I enjoy having nice things and providing for my family.This is a false dichotomy: the only two choices you offer are the extremes of capitalism and communism, neither of which have ever been implemented in your beloved real world, btw. C.f: "Why would I ever want to live in a society that takes away someone's hard earned money to give to someone who doesn't work as hard?" ...extreme capitalism... "I do NOT believe that we should just put all the money in the pot and divide it among those who work and those who are too lazy to work." ...extreme communism.

What's baffling about this is you (or possibly Ganalon) have brought up in other threads how the rich already pay a significantly higher percentage in taxes. All Senator Clinton is talking about is upping the percentage some. This isn't a binary decision, we're just moving the slider. You can certainly say she's a hypocrite and she should be contributing her own money (although it would probably be better if you could back that up factually rather than just yammering about it), but that would be an ad hominem attack and thus irrelevant as to whether her proposal is worthwhile.

[Parkbandit]

Well, then, PB, do you say we should not aspire to an ideal of communality, and should just fall back on our inherently greedy ways?

I'd like to think the human race is striving for more than something than its animal nature.

And like I keep saying: how many of those contributors would still contribute if those donations weren't tax deductible (IE, if charity wasn't self-interested, as it is now)?

-TheE-

Me: Communism has never worked, ever.

TheE: So let's keep trying it until it does.

You said that it is human nature to be greedy.. what the fuck makes you think you can ever change that? Because it works in your fantasy world?

Communism has and always will be an economical failure because of human nature. I would love to live in the world of Star Trek.. where money isn't needed and everyone can just do what they want. But that is a TV show... not real life. It has never worked.

[Parkbandit]

This is a false dichotomy: the only two choices you offer are the extremes of capitalism and communism, neither of which have ever been implemented in your beloved real world, btw. C.f: "Why would I ever want to live in a society that takes away someone's hard earned money to give to someone who doesn't work as hard?" ...extreme capitalism... "I do NOT believe that we should just put all the money in the pot and divide it among those who work and those who are too lazy to work." ...extreme communism.

What's baffling about this is you (or possibly Ganalon) have brought up in other threads how the rich already pay a significantly higher percentage in taxes. All Senator Clinton is talking about is upping the percentage some. This isn't a binary decision, we're just moving the slider. You can certainly say she's a hypocrite and she should be contributing her own money (although it would probably be better if you could back that up factually rather than just yammering about it), but that would be an ad hominem attack and thus irrelevant as to whether her proposal is worthwhile.

And I am telling you that you will get to a certain point (many believe we've already reached it) where the companies simply cannot make money in America and they will pull up stakes and go somewhere else where they are not taxed as highly. What then?

I worked until June 12th last year for the US Government and the State of Florida. I think that is far too much.

[CrystalTears]

What's baffling about this is you (or possibly Ganalon) have brought up in other threads how the rich already pay a significantly higher percentage in taxes. All Senator Clinton is talking about is upping the percentage some.
That's all, eh? So some are saying they're already paying too much and you're saying, eh, make them pay more. Yeah I'm guessing that's why they're complaining. I hope that percentage is going up across the board and not just with the rich.

[Back]

China is doing very well.

[Gan]

China is doing very well.

Yea, just ask Google. Or the people who wish to use it unfettered.

[Atlanteax]

And like I keep saying: how many of those contributors would still contribute if those donations weren't tax deductible (IE, if charity wasn't self-interested, as it is now)?
-TheE-

Why wouldn't they remain tax deductible?

The Federal Gov't should *encourage* through tax breaks, but NOT forcibly by reallocation through heavy taxation and then the respective spending.

[Atlanteax]

China is doing very well.

Hahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahhahaha a !!!!!!!

...

(regains breath)

...

You're kidding, right?

I certainly hope so...

[Parkbandit]

China is doing very well.

LOL.

Doing well? Oh, please do elaborate. I was wondering when you would pop in here and defend communism.

This should be fun.

[Parkbandit]

Hahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahhahaha a !!!!!!!

...

(regains breath)

...

You're kidding, right?

I certainly hope so...

He's not kidding, unless he is confronted with a bunch of actual facts.. then he will say "yea, I was just kidding... but Cuba's doing well"

[Back]

Hahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahhahaha a !!!!!!!

...

(regains breath)

...

You're kidding, right?

I certainly hope so...

China is a major global economic power and decidedly communist. I’m not saying thats good or bad, just saying.

[Atlanteax]

China is a major global economic power and decidedly communist. I’m not saying thats good or bad, just saying.

Yes... but that is due to more than 1 billion people, representing a huge market... and then theres FDI (foreign direct investment) which is taking advantage of the abdundant cheap labor.

In the meantime China has *a lot* of economic problems at the structural level.

I give the leadership a lot of credit for trying to be pragmatic in implementing badly needed reforms, particularly to clean up the endemic bad debt problem (where China ran into the same phenomen that plagued Japan and led to Japan's stagnation). Unfortunately, the leadership is unwilling to implement complete solutions (going with the step by step drawn-out bandage approach) due to the tremendous civil disorder it would cause as millions of Chinese become unemployed (purpose of government companies are to employ them, even though it's a money-losing process for the government), and would result in the Communist Party losing power (worse-case scenario is China breaking into east vs west, or even 3-4 states).

Btw, it may be the Communist Party in name, but it is adopting a lot more capitalistic tendencies, and has begun to do so two decades ago.

[Latrinsorm]

And I am telling you that you will get to a certain point (many believe we've already reached it) where the companies simply cannot make money in America and they will pull up stakes and go somewhere else where they are not taxed as highly.Review what Senator Clinton proposed with regards to companies themselves: "Clinton said she would reduce special breaks for corporations, eliminate tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas". That companies in other countries can make use of de facto slave labor is hardly an indictment of the American tax system. (As an aside, this is a very good demonstration of why we are not at the extreme of capitalism and why humans are not economics robots.)

The fundamental point of your position is that you don't want what you "earned" to go towards those who are "lazy". This sort of grand-scale character assessment is really disheartening (and inaccurate), and I'm pretty sure it's there that our fundamental disagreement lies.
So some are saying they're already paying too much and you're saying, eh, make them pay more.Actually some (or in this case just one) were saying that paying at all was preposterous, hence my surprise.
I hope that percentage is going up across the board and not just with the rich.Yeah! Down with the people who are... already down!! :\

[DeV]

I hope that percentage is going up across the board and not just with the rich.

If the rich are getting richer, and the poor, even if they are not getting poorer also aren't seeing their incomes rise anywhere near to comparable levels then why would that percentage need to rise across the boards? The income gap is not narrowing by a long shot last I checked. The corporate CEOs and CFOs we speak of in terms of their oversized paychecks, which seem to grow by leaps and bounds year by year should see their percentage rate rise at a level equal to someone getting paid minimum wage?

Just because we read a newspaper article that says the GDP is up and everything is honkey dorey that doesn't mean everyone is benefiting from that growth. You have to also dig a little deeper to determine who is benefiting the most and who really isn't benefiting at all. What if virtually all that growth has gone into corporate profits and the incomes of those who are already at the highest economic bracket. Oh yes, then that simply means the rich get richer and the poor simply stagnate and who cares really because that's the American way.

[Atlanteax]

This generation is worse off than the previous.

Median Earnings for men in their 30s...
1977 was $40k
2007 it is $35k

(12% drop!!)

Note: This is adjusted for inflation, to reflect "real earnings"

[CrystalTears]

I don't want the percentage to go up at all. I'm just not in total agreement with the mentality that the rich have to support everyone else.

[Latrinsorm]

Which, again, is a misrepresentation.

[Parkbandit]

Which, again, is a misrepresentation.

Amazing how often it's a misrepresentation when it doesn't jive with your opinion. I barely read anything you post, simply because it has a Stanley type stink to it... but if you really believe that raising taxes on the rich to subsidize those who are poor.. maybe you should check out how great it worked in France where they've basically said "Mon Dieu! Enough!" and elected a 'conservative' to straighten the economic shitstain the liberals have left that country in.

[Bartlett]

People talk about the greatness of raising taxes for corporations. Do you guys actually think that the money they pay out comes from any pocket other than yours? I don't care what causes it, increased overhead means increased prices, and taxes are part of a corporation's overhead. Unless you decide to go live on the streets of Boston and enjoy the free healthcare, higher taxes for corporations will be of little to no benefit for you, with many possible negative outcomes.

[Latrinsorm]

Amazing how often it's a misrepresentation when it doesn't jive with your opinion.It is odd how often I disagree with factually incorrect statements, true. It's almost like I'm trying to ignore partisan bias, weird huh?
I barely read anything you postThere aren't enough owls in all possible universes to express my feigned disbelief at this statement.
People talk about the greatness of raising taxes for corporations.I think the big kicker here is decreasing tax breaks for jumping the country. I'm all for the one world government, but we're a long long way away from that and the aforementioned slavery thing is kind of a big deal. Until we can enforce laws from pole to shining pole, removing the incentive to indulge in them seems pretty good to me.

[Back]

People talk about the greatness of raising taxes for corporations. Do you guys actually think that the money they pay out comes from any pocket other than yours? I don't care what causes it, increased overhead means increased prices, and taxes are part of a corporation's overhead. Unless you decide to go live on the streets of Boston and enjoy the free healthcare, higher taxes for corporations will be of little to no benefit for you, with many possible negative outcomes.

You are the statistic. A margin. You are not human anymore. You are a point on a chart. You seem to be happy about that.

[Sean of the Thread]

You are the statistic. A margin. You are not human anymore. You are a point on a chart. You seem to be happy about that.

Aren't you as well?

[Back]

Aren't you as well?

Fuck no. I change my address, phone number and IP daily.

Live below the grid, baby.

[Sean of the Thread]

Fuck no. I change my address, phone number and IP daily.

Live below the grid, baby.

You become a point on the chart every time you buy a RFID TAGGED ITEM!

YOU CAN'T HIDE SUCKA'

[Back]

You become a point on the chart every time you buy a RFID TAGGED ITEM!

YOU CAN'T HIDE SUCKA'

Like I’m not aware of RFID?

Want to play a game? How about global nuclear war?

[Sean of the Thread]

Like I’m not aware of RFID?

Want to play a game? How about global nuclear war?

What is the primary goal?

[Back]

Survival foremost, reproduction after that. I know you are with it.

Say goodbye to the chumps.

[Sean of the Thread]

Wrong sucka!


Joshua: Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
David Lightman: Later. Right now lets play Global Thermonuclear War.
Joshua: Fine.
David Lightman: What is the primary goal?
Joshua: You should know, Professor. You programmed me.
David Lightman: C'mon. What is the primary goal?
Joshua: To win the game.

[Back]

Wrong sucka!


Joshua: Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
David Lightman: Later. Right now lets play Global Thermonuclear War.
Joshua: Fine.
David Lightman: What is the primary goal?
Joshua: You should know, Professor. You programmed me.
David Lightman: C'mon. What is the primary goal?
Joshua: To win the game.

Thats where you fail and I succeed. Nothing personal, bro.

[Back]

Its genetic.

[Sean of the Thread]

Hey I didn't write the script. The Illuminati did.

[Back]

Hey I didn't write the script. The Illuminati did.

Wrong again. Not surprising.

[Sean of the Thread]

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/11111.jpg

[Daniel]

Shit. Didn't notice that there was 6 pages of posts. Shows me reading the boards after clubbing in Lisbon.

[Daniel]

I completely agree with your observation of natural law.. but your conclusions are not based upon history. You claim that if we take the money made by some and give it to others that everything will be happy and rosey. Let me tell you right now, that has never been the case. Show me were this communist model has ever worked in the real world. Humans ARE greedy.. what makes you think that when they are forced to give up their hard earned money that it will somehow change? Let me tell you right now.. if this crackpot plan comes to fruition.. you will hear a giant sucking sound of companies running to other countries to save billions of dollars. I know I will create a holding company for my small business to avoid this redistribution of wealth. I hear the Caymens are great.

And speaking of human observations... let's just say we do the Clinton plan of taxing the wealthy so much that we even out the wealth of this country.. what again is the incentive for me to go out and work? Why? If I sit on my ass and play Playstation 3 everyday.. the Government will provide for me. Why should I take some self responsibility to provide for my family when the Government will? Why would I go out and work hard everyday so that the majority of my wealth is taken from me to give to some slug on a couch somewhere?


1. What happened to obeying the law? Or does that only apply to Immigrants and you when you have a reason to?

2. Giving people access to education is hardly redistributing wealth. It's called creating equal opportunity. If you sat on your ass playing playstation 3 all day then chances are that you won't do well in school.

Giving people the chance to go to school is vastly different then providing for them their entire life.

[Daniel]

I guess the funniest thing in all of this is that some people are so zealously attached to espousing idiotic mantras such as "The rich shouldn't support the poor" that they lose sight of the reality of the situation.

The US has been lagging behind the entire world for some time in the area of education. The direct result of this has been a loss of American competitiveness in the global marketplace.

What does that mean?

It means that America is losing its share global economic hegemony at a rate disportionate than what it should be. If America wants to maintain this hegemony than it will be necessary to invest large amounts of money into our educational system to bring us back on track with the rest of this world. It sounds nice to say that we'll let the private citizenry do it, but that ignores two things: 1) It's a public issue, and a public problem, and 2) Even if it weren't the private citizenry of the country has not shown the propensity to shoulder the burden of the gap that alreadye exists. So why would you expect them to pick up any more of it?

It may be in the best interests of a corporation to have an educated work force, but that doesn't mean they'll start investing in pre college educational systems that need it. The investment horizon is too long and the return is too unpredictable for any corporation to do so with any sense fiduciary responsibility.

[Parkbandit]

1. What happened to obeying the law? Or does that only apply to Immigrants and you when you have a reason to?

2. Giving people access to education is hardly redistributing wealth. It's called creating equal opportunity. If you sat on your ass playing playstation 3 all day then chances are that you won't do well in school.

Giving people the chance to go to school is vastly different then providing for them their entire life.


1) I think I missed your point... or you missed mine. ILLEGAL Immigration is called illegal for a reason. Because it's not obeying the laws of the country.

2) How do they not have access to education? If you are talking k-12, go to a public school like I did. If you are talking college, get a fucking job like I did. Take out a loan like I had to. Work your way through like I had to.

Take some personal responsibility for your fucking life and stop asking the Government to hold your fucking hand.

[Landrion]

Thats where you fail and I succeed. Nothing personal, bro.

No way dude, he gets mad points for a wargames reference.

[ElanthianSiren]

2) How do they not have access to education? If you are talking k-12, go to a public school like I did. If you are talking college, get a fucking job like I did. Take out a loan like I had to. Work your way through like I had to.

Take some personal responsibility for your fucking life and stop asking the Government to hold your fucking hand.

You're missing a few things; the government cut the federal subsidies to education dramatically during the past congressional administration (Pell grants and other such helps college students depend on) to their lowest levels since the 1970s. At the same time, the cost of college (inflation) rose disproportionately (and continues to do so). I'm not sure what jobs you're expecting college kids get, but if you're a science major or anything more than an arts major (No offense to you arts majors on the boards), I doubt you're going to have time. Standard science program is 14-16 crh on normal semester and 7 on summer semesters (about 6 weeks each); even business majors are inching up toward 14 crh/semesters. I also doubt highly a college job is going to cover it, as colleges find more and more ways to tack on extra administrative costs. Loans are an option, as they've always been, but their use can't presently compete with inflation/less pool money in higher education systems.

What is an option is reinstituting the Pell Grant cut during last congress, Bush actually doing as he said he would with regard to education subsidy when he campaigned, dispensing more money to tech programs and community colleges, and assuring that 4 year institutions take more of the credits. That last one would require a standardized-style system, however, so we'll never see it.

[Gan]

I doubt you're going to have time. Standard science program is 14-16 crh on normal semester and 7 on summer semesters (about 6 weeks each); even business majors are inching up toward 14 crh/semesters. I also doubt highly a college job is going to cover it, as colleges find more and more ways to tack on extra administrative costs.

Since you're not required to carry a full load (unless you're under a scholarship that requires it) then you carry what load (crh) that you job can afford (ie. go part time). Thats what I did.

Not to mention that some degrees require morning classes, afternoon labs, and then you have to work/sleep/study at night. Good luck on trying to fit that together (thats why I did not follow through with my ME degree).

[Parkbandit]

You're missing a few things; the government cut the federal subsidies to education dramatically during the past congressional administration (Pell grants and other such helps college students depend on) to their lowest levels since the 1970s. At the same time, the cost of college (inflation) rose disproportionately (and continues to do so). I'm not sure what jobs you're expecting college kids get, but if you're a science major or anything more than an arts major (No offense to you arts majors on the boards), I doubt you're going to have time. Standard science program is 14-16 crh on normal semester and 7 on summer semesters (about 6 weeks each); even business majors are inching up toward 14 crh/semesters. I also doubt highly a college job is going to cover it, as colleges find more and more ways to tack on extra administrative costs. Loans are an option, as they've always been, but their use can't presently compete with inflation/less pool money in higher education systems.

What is an option is reinstituting the Pell Grant cut during last congress, Bush actually doing as he said he would with regard to education subsidy when he campaigned, dispensing more money to tech programs and community colleges, and assuring that 4 year institutions take more of the credits. That last one would require a standardized-style system, however, so we'll never see it.

Much like the typical liberal.. all I'm hearing are excuses. If you want to go to college, it is available to each and every American, regardless of income. I worked 2 fucking jobs while going to school during the mornings. I did it, it can be done. I didn't just sit at home and go "Oh, woe is me.. I may as well just give up because the Government isn't holding my hand!"

Self responsibility.. something most liberals clearly lack.

[Latrinsorm]

Because everyone can get a job (or two) whenever they want, after all. Structural unemployment is just a liberal commie euphemism for laziness, right?

[CrystalTears]

Oh c'mon. I had two jobs during college. They don't have to be glamorous. Hell one at Walmart and another at Mickey D's. Not seeing the issue either.

[DeV]

Much like the typical liberal.. all I'm hearing are excuses. If you want to go to college, it is available to each and every American, regardless of income. I worked 2 fucking jobs while going to school during the mornings. I did it, it can be done. I didn't just sit at home and go "Oh, woe is me.. I may as well just give up because the Government isn't holding my hand!"

Self responsibility.. something most liberals clearly lack.You know what most conservatives clearly lack, self awareness. Just because something happened a certain way for you doesn't mean it should or even could be that way for everyone. Anecdotal evidence is not the final word in a debate, this one being no exception, and conservatives such as yourself tend to try to tailor a debate to benefit their interests alone more often than not. Liberals are certainly no exception, but I see this with greater frequency on your end of the spectrum. No one is claiming that it is impossible to work two jobs while going to college. I could just as easily say, wow, that really sucks. If you were smart like me you could have gotten yourself a full academic scholarship and worked only as an option while attending college.

That isn't a possiblity for everyone so it would be pretty baseless of me to claim that since I did it that way everyone can. You had to work, I didn't, but we both met our end goal and can say we accomplished something that others may have also accomplished through entirely different means.

Are you also going to sit here and make us believe that only liberal students applied for and received federal pell grants in the past, all the while conservative students were turning them down en masse because they didn't believe in the concept of "government handouts" to subsidize their higher education? Bullshit.

Furthermore, empathy of others is a virtue that has a place in any good government ideology. It has less to do with whining, making excuses, and relying on government "handouts" and more to do with helping people that help themselves and will eventually become productive members of society and hopefully give back to others some day. The assumption that just because someone may need a helping hand, using college education as an example, they are either lazy or unwilling to attain that goal through any other means possible is flat out wrong in most cases.

[CrystalTears]

I've seen people give up college simply because they were denied a grant. This is what mainly bothers me about the drive for education, and it really doesn't matter which side does it more. To say that not getting a pell grant makes getting education impossible is what I completely disagree with.

I saw his statement of working two jobs to get through college as an example of how it can be done without the government, not the only way.

[DeV]

I've seen people give up college simply because they were denied a grant. This is what mainly bothers me about the drive for education, and it really doesn't matter which side does it more. To say that not getting a pell grant makes getting education impossible is what I completely disagree with.

I saw his statement of working two jobs to get through college as an example of how it can be done without the government, not the only way.
Alternately, I've never seen someone give up college because of being denied a grant. What sets what you've said apart from PB's assertion is that this is not just a liberal issue; the strive for education is something that should affect everyone at some level, even though it doesn't. Student loans are guaranteed as long as you've never been convicted of a drug felony and so obviously there is another way to offset the denial of a grant or scholarship on top of working as an option if employment is an available and viable option where you seek it.

I also didn't read ES's response to insinuate that not receiving a pell grant makes education entirely impossible, unless I'm missing something here. Feel free to point it out to me. I took it more to point out just some of the short comings facing those who may rely on certain means to meet the rising costs of higher education. It wasn't the be all to end all in terms of offsetting college costs.

I saw his statement as a typical liberal bash with no regard to the fact that the pursuit of education affects liberal and conservative students alike, hence my reply. Take it as you will.

[Daniel]

1) I think I missed your point... or you missed mine. ILLEGAL Immigration is called illegal for a reason. Because it's not obeying the laws of the country.


As would moving your money to off shore accounts for reasons of tax evasion.

The point is that you'd be quick to violate the law if you saw it benefiting your standard of living and yet you are so prone to judge people who simple want a better life. Hypocritical?



2) How do they not have access to education? If you are talking k-12, go to a public school like I did. If you are talking college, get a fucking job like I did. Take out a loan like I had to. Work your way through like I had to.


I attend school through several ways:

1) My GI Bill that I earned, through 4.5 years of Active duty in the US military
2) My tuition assistance from my continued service in the Army Reserves
3) Student financial aid
4) Competitive scholarships that I have won
5) A full time job.

I don't think I need lessons from you on how to take care of myself and put myself through college. However, the point of my response was your ascertation that I am somehow looking for a handout by seeking educational assistance.

I *am* working for my education, and yet I still need help. What part of the american system tells people to go fuck themselves if they have the drive and determination to do something but not the money?




Take some personal responsibility for your fucking life and stop asking the Government to hold your fucking hand.
[/quote]

Obviously what I'm doing.

[Daniel]

To further expound on my previous post. I can could *not* have gone to college out of high school. I went to a shitty public school and lacked the ability to obtain a full ride academic scholarship and had a family to support. So, I did and went to college whenever I had the opportunity. This includes 6 classes while deployed to Iraq fighting for America day in and day out, and no I didn't have some pussy service job. I was on the front lines, but I guess I'm just another lazy liberal looking for a handout.

lol.

[Parkbandit]

Because everyone can get a job (or two) whenever they want, after all. Structural unemployment is just a liberal commie euphemism for laziness, right?


The typical american can. Sure there are a few exceptions, but for the most part anyone who came out of high school can easily attain employment if they so desire.

Desire being the key word there.

I grew up in a very rural village (1500 people maybe) so between graduating high school and going to college, I had to take a year off and bust my ass to get enough money together. I worked at a Pizzaria, had 3 groundskeeping jobs and worked part time in a small engine repair shop. My social life was pretty shitty, but I did what I had to do to reach my goal. When I finally got into college, I still had to bust my ass to afford room and board and books so I had 1 work study job and one real job at a hotel.

"Not everyone can get a job" is just another in a long line of convenient excuses for you to blame someone else for your problems in life.

[Parkbandit]

You know what most conservatives clearly lack, self awareness. Just because something happened a certain way for you doesn't mean it should or even could be that way for everyone. Anecdotal evidence is not the final word in a debate, this one being no exception, and conservatives such as yourself tend to try to tailor a debate to benefit their interests alone more often than not. Liberals are certainly no exception, but I see this with greater frequency on your end of the spectrum. No one is claiming that it is impossible to work two jobs while going to college. I could just as easily say, wow, that really sucks. If you were smart like me you could have gotten yourself a full academic scholarship and worked only as an option while attending college.

That isn't a possiblity for everyone so it would be pretty baseless of me to claim that since I did it that way everyone can. You had to work, I didn't, but we both met our end goal and can say we accomplished something that others may have also accomplished through entirely different means.

Are you also going to sit here and make us believe that only liberal students applied for and received federal pell grants in the past, all the while conservative students were turning them down en masse because they didn't believe in the concept of "government handouts" to subsidize their higher education? Bullshit.

Furthermore, empathy of others is a virtue that has a place in any good government ideology. It has less to do with whining, making excuses, and relying on government "handouts" and more to do with helping people that help themselves and will eventually become productive members of society and hopefully give back to others some day. The assumption that just because someone may need a helping hand, using college education as an example, they are either lazy or unwilling to attain that goal through any other means possible is flat out wrong in most cases.



First off, I'll put my grades against yours anyday. Just because I didn't get a free ride through college doesn't mean I didn't get any scholorships. I still had to pay for room and board and books and have some spending money. I not only had 2 grants and 2 scholorships, but I also got a gift from one of my employers that paid for 1 semester of tuition.

So, who exactly can't get a job out of high school again? Are we talking that great 1% of the population you (liberals) continue to point at and say "See, Americans NEED us!!" What percent of the graduating high school class can't work? It's a very, very small percentage... and there are tons of Government assistance that helps that small section of our population.

My assertion remains.. if the typical American wants to go to college, the only thing stopping them is their own drive and determination.

[Parkbandit]

As would moving your money to off shore accounts for reasons of tax evasion.

The point is that you'd be quick to violate the law if you saw it benefiting your standard of living and yet you are so prone to judge people who simple want a better life. Hypocritical?

Actually, you are incorrect. There are many LEGAL ways of lowering your tax burden. Creating a holding company is one of several.




I attend school through several ways:

1) My GI Bill that I earned, through 4.5 years of Active duty in the US military
2) My tuition assistance from my continued service in the Army Reserves
3) Student financial aid
4) Competitive scholarships that I have won
5) A full time job.

I don't think I need lessons from you on how to take care of myself and put myself through college. However, the point of my response was your ascertation that I am somehow looking for a handout by seeking educational assistance.

I *am* working for my education, and yet I still need help. What part of the american system tells people to go fuck themselves if they have the drive and determination to do something but not the money?


Yet you still need help? Then go to a cheaper college, get more in loans or get a better job or two. Boo hoo, you still need help. I'll be honest.. I'm surprised you haven't brought up your race yet.

[DeV]

First off, I'll put my grades against yours anyday.
Good for you.




Just because I didn't get a free ride through college doesn't mean I didn't get any scholorships. "I worked 2 fucking jobs while going to school during the mornings. I did it, it can be done. I didn't just sit at home and go "Oh, woe is me.. I may as well just give up because the Government isn't holding my hand!"

"I had to take a year off and bust my ass to get enough money together."

Your words not mine. I applaud your efforts to attain your education and reach your goals through hard work and dedication, but that doesn't make someone else's use of government sponsored grant, work study, loan, or scholarship programs of any less importance than you working 2, 3, or even 10 jobs just to scrape up enough money to pay for your room, board, and books for college. The point is that it doesn't make your pursuit any better than someone elses. The fact of the matter, and by your own admission, is that you relied on government handouts in addition to working, and receiving scholarships so you really have no room to bash anyone else for wanting the same if they are determined to use whatever means necessary to obtain their degree.



I still had to pay for room and board and books and have some spending money. I not only had 2 grants and 2 scholorships, but I also got a gift from one of my employers that paid for 1 semester of tuition.Grats for relying on government handouts to subsidize your college education. This only goes to show that if it worked for you it can work for anyone.



So, who exactly can't get a job out of high school again? I haven't pointed out any portion of the population that can't get a job out of high school. I'll bite though just because, "It's a very, very small percentage... and there are tons of Government assistance that helps that small section of our population."

Again, your words not mine. Nice job answering your own question and two thumbs up for referring to the "government handouts" available to those lazy peons(not the conservative ones, mind you) who may need assistance, on top of all the other endeavors they may already be pursuing to finance their college education after graduating high school.


My assertion remains.. if the typical American wants to go to college, the only thing stopping them is their own drive and determination.Oh so it's the "typical American" now. At least that's a step up from the rhetoric you were spouting in your previous posts.

[Warriorbird]

Compared to Hillary's other nonsense...supporting financial aid for education is a good idea.

And if you want examples of loans and such helping out people...maybe take a look at the microfinance phenomenon in Southeast Asia. That stuff leads to profits for corporations too...a win win.

[Parkbandit]

Good for you.

"I worked 2 fucking jobs while going to school during the mornings. I did it, it can be done. I didn't just sit at home and go "Oh, woe is me.. I may as well just give up because the Government isn't holding my hand!"

"I had to take a year off and bust my ass to get enough money together."

Your words not mine. I applaud your efforts to attain your education and reach your goals through hard work and dedication, but that doesn't make someone else's use of government sponsored grant, work study, loan, or scholarship programs of any less importance than you working 2, 3, or even 10 jobs just to scrape up enough money to pay for your room, board, and books for college. The point is that it doesn't make your pursuit any better than someone elses. The fact of the matter, and by your own admission, is that you relied on government handouts in addition to working, and receiving scholarships so you really have no room to bash anyone else for wanting the same if they are determined to use whatever means necessary to obtain their degree.

Grats for relying on government handouts to subsidize your college education. This only goes to show that if it worked for you it can work for anyone.

I haven't pointed out any portion of the population that can't get a job out of high school. I'll bite though just because, "It's a very, very small percentage... and there are tons of Government assistance that helps that small section of our population."

Again, your words not mine. Nice job answering your own question and two thumbs up for referring to the "government handouts" available to those lazy peons(not the conservative ones, mind you) who may need assistance, on top of all the other endeavors they may already be pursuing to finance their college education after graduating high school.

Oh so it's the "typical American" now. At least that's a step up from the rhetoric you were spouting in your previous posts.


Sorry, I'll dumb it down for you, since you clearly didn't understand most of my post.

Some people r dum because they are have a l3arning disability and them cannot get job from skool, but that r a low number and the Gov't has programs 4 them to live on. We not talking about them though, we r talking about typical americans. Most Americans r smart enough 2 get job and if they want 2 go 2 college and r smart enough 2 get in, then they should do whatever they can 2 get 2 college and stop looking for someone 2 give them a handout.

Thank u

[DeV]

All I'm seeing from you at this point is this; you relied on not one, but two government handouts, LOL.

The end.

[Sean of the Thread]

I've seen people give up college simply because they were denied a grant. This is what mainly bothers me about the drive for education, and it really doesn't matter which side does it more. To say that not getting a pell grant makes getting education impossible is what I completely disagree with.

I saw his statement of working two jobs to get through college as an example of how it can be done without the government, not the only way.

If you're denied a grant you're either not eligible (duh) or didn't apply early enough. I've NEVER been denied a grant of some form or another. I always worked a job during college and at times two.

People need to stop whining. There is soo much fucking financial assistance available there really is no financial excuse not to obtain a higher education in America.

[ElanthianSiren]

Much like the typical liberal.. all I'm hearing are excuses. If you want to go to college, it is available to each and every American, regardless of income. I worked 2 fucking jobs while going to school during the mornings. I did it, it can be done. I didn't just sit at home and go "Oh, woe is me.. I may as well just give up because the Government isn't holding my hand!"

Self responsibility.. something most liberals clearly lack.

Actually, I've never had to rely on government money for my education; I simply recognize that not everyone is as fortunate as I, having had at least a few friends in Michigan struggling with the cost of 4 year, juggling jobs, kids etc. If you really believe that conservatives are so disciplined however, you should field a bill and pitch it to the major universities; go there and announce the major republican vision is that everyone (republican or conservative leaning) is going to lose financial aid (and the tuition for each year they can't be FTS and graduate program consideration as well (graduate programs look very heavily at how large of a courseload an individual can maintain now)). It'll be interesting to see how many young democrats are created in such a short span of time.

Man, your posts always leave me with this vision of lead.

[Sean of the Thread]

There is simply NO excuse other than stupidity for not attending college in America.

None.

[Parkbandit]

All I'm seeing from you at this point is this; you relied on not one, but two government handouts, LOL.

The end.


All I'm seeing from you at this point is this: You don't know the difference between two simple words: Relied and Received. LOL

The end.

[DeV]

There is simply NO excuse other than stupidity for not attending college in America.

None.
It's safe to say we agree, and many will work their ass off to prove just how true this statement is. However, this is no where close to what's currently being argued in this thread.

[Parkbandit]

Man, your posts always leave me with this vision of lead.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/Lead.jpg

[DeV]

All I'm seeing from you at this point is this: You don't know the difference between two simple words: Relied and Received. LOL

The end.Oh, the irony. After all, what more should I expect from someone critical of those RELYING on the same government handouts that helped to put a roof over your head during the course of your collegiate education.

Still, LOL.

[Sean of the Thread]

It's safe to say we agree, and many will work their ass off to prove just how true this statement is. However, this is no where close to what's currently being argued in this thread.

Hey I'm just saying. It really makes all other arguments moot. If you're intelligent enough to handle it... there is nothing stopping you financially. If you're stupid.. blame your parents.

[Parkbandit]

Oh, the irony. After all, what more should I expect from someone critical of those RELYING on the same government handouts that helped to put a roof over your head during the course of your collegiate education.

Still, LOL.

Still have a reading comprehension problem I see. Let me see if I can help you comprehend a pretty simple idea that I imagine 99% of this forum population easily understood. I didn't say, nor did I infer, that anyone who receives financial aid is bad. My point was that those who complain and use the excuse of no money to not go to college should get up off their lazy asses and take some initiative and make it happen. If it means taking a year off to save money, if it means not going out every night to a bar, if it means working while studying... then do it.

[DeV]

Grats, you made a point that even Warclaidhm could comprehend without needing to have it spelled out for him. Thanks for informing us all of the fucking obvious.

You also completely missed the basis of ES's post, as expected.

[Parkbandit]

Grats, you made a point that even Warclaidhm could comprehend without needing to have it spelled out for him. Thanks for informing us all of the fucking obvious.


Even Warclaidhm got it in less fucking posts than you. If it was that fucking obvious, why again did it take you 3 pages?

Grats on being a dumb bitch.

[Back]

I’m still waiting for a tax-free America. With all that extra cash I could buy a masters degree and then retire in my own hometown 6 bedroom mansion with a pool and a tennis court.

[DeV]

Grats on being a dumb bitch.
And grats to you on being an ignorant dim-witted hick. Glad I could make you feel all at home, though try not to be such a whiny cunt the next time you don't agree with some shit you clearly don't understand in the first place.

[Parkbandit]

And grats to you on being an ignorant dim-witted hick. Glad I could make you feel all at home, though try not to be such a whiny cunt the next time you don't agree with some shit you clearly don't understand in the first place.


Great advice you should use skank.

[DeV]

lol, it's better than anything you've stated all day twat.

I'll try not to let you rub off on me in the future.

[Daniel]

Actually, you are incorrect. There are many LEGAL ways of lowering your tax burden. Creating a holding company is one of several.



Last time I checked, intentionally avoiding your taxes was against the law.





Yet you still need help? Then go to a cheaper college, get more in loans or get a better job or two. Boo hoo, you still need help. I'll be honest.. I'm surprised you haven't brought up your race yet.

Lol. I'm not boohooing at all. I do quite well for myself. *thanks*.

I'm just ridiculing your notion that because I'm a liberal (and black), I don't know shit about personal responsibility.

[Parkbandit]

lol, it's better than anything you've stated all day twat.

I'll try not to let you rub off on me in the future.


When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates .

I guess that is your way of declaring me winner.

Grats me!

[Parkbandit]

Last time I checked, intentionally avoiding your taxes was against the law.

Learn business law imo... you could have saved yourself some posting effort here.



Lol. I'm not boohooing at all. I do quite well for myself. *thanks*.

I'm just ridiculing your notion that because I'm a liberal (and black), I don't know shit about personal responsibility.

It has nothing about you being a liberal or you being black and more about your responses in this forum that make me believe that you know shit about personal responsibility.

[Ilvane]

It's typical PB, he can't argue with you any more so he starts insulting your intelligence and your "liberal-ness"

heh.

Angela

[Landrion]

There is simply NO excuse other than stupidity for not attending college in America.

None.

I dont agree, Ive met plenty of smart people without a degree whose career path simply didnt need college.

Which again, is Hilary's point in the original post.


"We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this," she said. "Our country cannot run without the people who have the skills that are taught in this school."


For once, Im inclined to agree with her. People have different aptitudes and desires. Not taking one particular path to success doesnt make those who take the other paths "stupid".

[Daniel]

Learn business law imo... you could have saved yourself some posting effort here.



Not really. If you think its legal to avoid paying taxes by transferring your income to an overseas entity then...

by all means.



It has nothing about you being a liberal or you being black and more about your responses in this forum that make me believe that you know shit about personal responsibility.

Lol. Right.

I show you how I'm taking care of myself by going to college, and yet...I don't know shit about personal responsibility? It couldn't possibly be because I believe that America has the responsibility to take care of its people and that some people have a fairer shake than others.

That's crazy talk.


Or...you're just a dumbass that doesn't know shit about the "Real world".

[Parkbandit]

It's typical PB, he can't argue with you any more so he starts insulting your intelligence and your "liberal-ness"

heh.

Angela


Aw.. someone's feelings are hurt. :(

Sorry, you stupid liberal.

[DeV]

I guess that is your way of declaring me winner.


Clearly, you win the train wreck of the week contest. You've got my vote.

"Much like the typical liberal.. all I'm hearing are excuses. If you want to go to college, it is available to each and every American, regardless of income. I worked 2 fucking jobs while going to school during the mornings. I did it, it can be done. I didn't just sit at home and go "Oh, woe is me.. I may as well just give up because the Government isn't holding my hand!"

Self responsibility.. something most liberals clearly lack."

As I stated before, you didn't address squat in the post you were responding to. In the words of Perry Cox, you're wrong and you're on a roll. Carry on.

[Artha]

No offense PB, but college is a lot more expensive now than it was when you were going to it. In state schools aren't that bad, but private or out of state tuition is usually terrible. If you can earn 40k/year while still going to school, more power to you, and please share your means with me.

[Parkbandit]

No offense PB, but college is a lot more expensive now than it was when you were going to it. In state schools aren't that bad, but private or out of state tuition is usually terrible. If you can earn 40k/year while still going to school, more power to you, and please share your means with me.

No offense Artha.. but there are other colleges you can go to that do not cost 40K a year to attend. I was accepted to Cornell, but couldn't afford to go there, so I attended SUNY Binghamton instead.

You still have to live within your means.

[TheEschaton]

SUNY Binghampton, no wonder you're so bitter.

All the people I know who went to Binghampton are major fucking stoners and totally spaced-out opium heads. It must come from living with the cows too long.

Congrats on not being a drug-addled addict, coming out of there. You could have at least gone to Geneseo.

[Gan]

SUNY Binghampton, no wonder you're so bitter.

All the people I know who went to Binghampton are major fucking stoners and totally spaced-out opium heads. It must come from living with the cows too long.

Congrats on not being a drug-addled addict, coming out of there. You could have at least gone to Geneseo.

You seriously cant be deriding an institution of greater learning by the use of a blanket statement? Or is that the immigrant (infereriority complex) east coast (ivy league) educational snob coming out in you? It should be lauded that he had the temerity to seek and obtain a 4 year degree by his own efforts from a credible university. Which is an experience you dont seem to share (the middle part at least).

[TheEschaton]

Being from upstate NY, I seem to know the vast majority of SUNY Binghampton's student population. I don't discredit it, all I know is that everyone who has ever come from there that I know has been a drug-laced loser...or extremely bitter. SUNY Buffalo, SUNY Geneseo, even SUNY Oswego, I know much better things about.

Oh, and I didn't go to the Ivy League either. ;)

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Being from upstate NY, I seem to know the vast majority of SUNY Binghampton's student population. I don't discredit it, all I know is that everyone who has ever come from there that I know has been a drug-laced loser...or extremely bitter. SUNY Buffalo, SUNY Geneseo, even SUNY Oswego, I know much better things about.

Oh, and I didn't go to the Ivy League either. ;)

-TheE-


LOL. You seem to know the vast majority of SUNY Binghamton's student Population from 1985 as well? Back when I went, Binghamton was the 3rd best state school in the nation, behind Berkley and one other. It's not even SUNY Binghamton anymore, it's Binghamton College or something goofy.

Across the street from that college is a Holiday Inn where I started my hotel career, shaking farts out of sheets.

[CrystalTears]

Your work hasn't changed much has it? :D

[Parkbandit]

But I will concede.. it was a pretty big drug infested college. I smoked my first pot there, as well as tried hash. There is a Residence Inn up the street that I helped open, where I procured a large Arabian bong (It was a large vessel in the middle that had 6 hoses coming out of it, covered in velvet cloth. I imagine it was very expensive, as it was adorned with gold looking metal and detailed embroidery).. to which I left to the next President of Broome Hall when I went off campus.

[Parkbandit]

Your work hasn't changed much has it? :D

I only shake my own farts out of my own sheets nowadays. :P

[Daniel]

I coulda got you one of those sheishas for like 15 bucks.

[Skirmisher]

China is a major global economic power and decidedly communist. I’m not saying thats good or bad, just saying.

China is not at all decidedly communist anymore and is growing less so every day.


I don't want the percentage to go up at all. I'm just not in total agreement with the mentality that the rich have to support everyone else.

I feel the ultra wealthy can easily afford to give back a relatively small amount to some of the people who helped continue the existence of the system that allows for the very rich to lead such a comfortable lifestyle. Hell, it's in their own best interest to do so.

[CrystalTears]

Sure, but that should be their decision to use as they see fit for whom they choose. I don't believe it should be the government to decide that for them. They earned the money, they should have some say in how they disburse it if it's going to be for the greater good of the community.

Just because someone earns more doesn't necessarily mean that they should automatically pay substantially more. What would be my incentive to work harder, learn more, and excel in my career if it means that I'll just have to dish out a lot of my money to basically a bottomless pit that is government spending?

[Daniel]

The money that you get to keep?

America still represents the best opportunity for anyone in the world to create insane amounts of personal wealth. As long as it is, then I doubt we'll see many people immigrating because they can't get rich.

It's funny but a large portion of Europe is significantly more "socialist" than America, and yet they do *better* in alot of areas, such as general happiness, educational attainment and long term prosperity.

[Latrinsorm]

Some would say that is an incentive; that the whole purpose of gaining wealth is to give it away in big ol' chunks. These people would be quite befuddled by the idea of personal surplus use you appear to espouse.

edit: the you refers to CT, not Daniel

[CrystalTears]

Yeah that's what I wanna do with my wealth.. give it to the government. I'd have NO problem giving it to charities and organizations of my choosing. Even if they state that you have to donate a certain portion of your income to such charaties, that's okay too. I'd like to keep my money local.

[Daniel]

You can do that too. It's why you get to use charitable contributions as a tax break.

[Ilvane]

I think it would be nice if rich folks just paid the equal share of taxes. None of these tax shelters, write-offs all that nonsense.

I thought it was pretty well established that trickle down economics didn't work, too.

Angela

[Gan]

Define equal share.

Do you mean as a percentage of money earned vs. taxes paid?

[CrystalTears]

I didn't want to go there because I was afraid of what is considered "equal".

[Sean of the Thread]

I think it would be nice if rich folks just paid the equal share of taxes. None of these tax shelters, write-offs all that nonsense.

I thought it was pretty well established that trickle down economics didn't work, too.

Angela

So you're against capitalism? As usual I think you're getting in over your head in threads you just don't need worry about.

[Gan]

I didn't want to go there because I was afraid of what is considered "equal".

Thats why I asked.

If you look at dollar per dollar tax contribution you'll find the rich actually pay quite a bit. Especially as compared to the 'poor' or 'middle class'.

Now if you're looking at overall societal contribution then of course the middle class will have a larger contribution as a whole, because of the sheer volume of those paying. Especially when compared to the poor who barely pay if at all and the small numbers of 'rich' (you still have to define 'rich' too).

[Latrinsorm]

I'd like to keep my money local.Why?

[CrystalTears]

Why not? I'd like my local community to benefit the most because it's where I do all my living and working. Of course I'd want to put back into a system that's given me what I have. It's why I'll solicit a local business before I go to a national franchise if it's possible. Why wouldn't I?

[Daniel]

So, you can donate enough money to offset any additional taxes that you would pay. What's the problem?

[DeV]

If you look at dollar per dollar tax contribution you'll find the rich actually pay quite a bit.As should be expected.

[Atlanteax]

Why?

Because it helps the local economy?

A better local economy translates into a better standard of living for her, at where she lives.

[Sean of the Thread]

I love how I see constant debates about "local" people complaining about their taxes going to "local" schools on the other hand. "Meh but I don't have kids mehhhhh" STFU.

Idiots.

[CrystalTears]

Heh, yeah those people always amaze me too. Just because you don't use the service doesn't mean your community won't benefit from it.

[Daniel]

So, why is that a bad thing on the national level? If you don't need educational assistance for college, why bebrudge it for someone else?

[Atlanteax]

So, why is that a bad thing on the national level? If you don't need educational assistance for college, why bebrudge it for someone else?

Last I knew, (higher) Education was a privilege... not a Right.

.

The first school systems (that was the inception of today's K-12 educational system) were created as a service for the local community.

Same thing applies to what we know as colleges/universities.

[CrystalTears]

I didn't realize it was my responsibility to fund someone else's college tuition.

[Ilvane]

So we should let the rich have the education, and too bad for the poor, who have to go to lesser schools, because they can't fund it?

That's not exactly right either.

I can't say anything bad about working for your college, since I started at a community college and wound up getting a free ride on a talent scholarship. I basically had to pay for everything(books and so forth) on my own.

I came from a family with a disabled father and a mother that worked really hard to make sure we had everything, but she certainly couldn't afford much for me for college. I graduated with a 3.87 in high school, but it wasn't enough to really get me too much money, and as far as need, my mom made enough that we weren't poor enough to get aid, but we were poor enough that we couldn't afford a great school. So I went to community college to start with.

Thankfully it worked out, but why shouldn't we help those who can't afford it?

Angela

[Daniel]

I didn't realize it was my responsibility to fund someone else's college tuition.


It's your responsibility to support the country monetary in its stated mission of ensuring life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all. Therefore, in today's world where a college education is seen a necessity it is. If you don't like that fact, then what exactly is wrong with supporting alternative means to self sufficiency as it is currently outlined in the original post?

[Sean of the Thread]

Anyone that quotes their GPA from highschool loses. It's a joke.

[Gan]

...but why shouldn't we help those who can't afford it?

Angela

Nothing wrong with helping out those who need it, but it has to be a choice among the benefactors willing to help, not a requirement. Thats what makes America free. ;)

[Daniel]

Last I knew, (higher) Education was a privilege... not a Right.

.

The first school systems (that was the inception of today's K-12 educational system) were created as a service for the local community.

Same thing applies to what we know as colleges/universities.


And now K-12 is considered a neccessity.

[Ilvane]

So sorry Sean, I graduated with a 3.84 from college, how's that?

Angela

[CrystalTears]

Pursuit of happiness, not right nor necessity. There is nothing stopping people from pursuing a good education and career.

I'd like for the stigma to go away that if you're not given a college degree then you're stupid or worthless to this country. I'd rather there be lots of different kinds of education options outside of universities such as vocational and technical schools and be just as promising and rewarding as a college degree.

I'll donate to scholarships and universities. I just want it to be of my choosing, that's all.

[Parkbandit]

I think it would be nice if rich folks just paid the equal share of taxes. None of these tax shelters, write-offs all that nonsense.

I thought it was pretty well established that trickle down economics didn't work, too.

Angela


Someone is clearly ignorant on how the tax system in this country works... though I'm not surprised at all.

[Latrinsorm]

Why not?I was thinking because people elsewhere generally have it significantly worse off than people in Connecticut. I didn't think about what benefited you in particular, which probably goes back to the whole Socrates thing.
Nothing wrong with helping out those who need it, but it has to be a choice among the benefactors willing to help, not a requirement. Thats what makes America free.That depends on what sort of rights you think we have. There are very good arguments that suggest that any positive right you or I have has concomitant and inherent responsibilities. If I say you have a right to (for instance) education but then I don't do anything to provide for your education, did I really say anything? Of course, I have my own life to live, so I can't go around helping every individual person: that's where my proxy (the government) comes in. Isn't that handy?

An alternative read is that all a positive right is is a promise of non-interference, but doesn't that seem awfully disingenuous, especially in this case considering current socioeconomic conditions?

[Daniel]

Pursuit of happiness, not right nor necessity. There is nothing stopping people from pursuing a good education and career.


A) There is plenty stopping people from obtaining an education. If you cut financial aid, as you have advocated, then it will be even more things.

B) The point of this program is to help people get the skills\things neccessary to PURSUE an education. This isn't about giving people a handout for their entire lives. To wit: we don't not live in an era where someone can pick up a farming hoe and eek out a living for himself and his family. Education and training is essential.

Therefore, as a country we should be invested in providing it in adequate amounts.

Also, as was ignored earlier, our lack of attention to the education issue has put america at a strategic disadvantage in global politics. Somehow, I doubt you support America being less competitive.

[CrystalTears]

Ah, no, the point has strayed, as I don't believe I ever said that there shouldn't be financial aid. I was against making the rich pay more than they already are.

[Latrinsorm]

There is nothing stopping people from pursuing a good education and career.While I don't think that anyone is totally screwed in terms of getting a decent job, it's very very far from a level playing field. Is it really appropriate to say to the people who have to go through Herculean labors "so what?" when there are people like me who really didn't have to try very hard at all to get in a very good school?

[Daniel]

So who should pay? Those with the ability or those without?

[Sean of the Thread]

So sorry Sean, I graduated with a 3.84 from college, how's that?

Angela

Not very impressive to be honest. Sorry.

[Sean of the Thread]

A) There is plenty stopping people from obtaining an education. If you cut financial aid, as you have advocated, then it will be even more things.



I agree with the part of your quote I left out. However.. what is the "plenty" as you put it that is stopping people from obtaining an education?

[Daniel]

Plenty as in: There existents barriers to education for significant portions of the population that are frequent enough to be statistically significant.

It's a pretty complex issue, with a complex solution that goes beyond "Financial aid" and "throwing money" at the issue. But the fact that there are still barriers means that a solution is necessary and the issue should not be relegated to the back burner because its only those "Lazy" people who don't get ahead in life.

[Warriorbird]

"I didn't realize it was my responsibility to fund someone else's college tuition."

Funny, kind of like it being everybody's responsibility to fund even wars they disagree with?

If we got to pick and choose where our taxes went I think the country'd be a lot different.

[Back]

"I didn't realize it was my responsibility to fund someone else's college tuition."

Funny, kind of like it being everybody's responsibility to fund even wars they disagree with?

If we got to pick and choose where our taxes went I think the country'd be a lot different.

Absolutely. Consider your taxes already go to public education. I don’t see why colleges should be any different. At the very least community colleges.

[Parkbandit]

Absolutely. Consider your taxes already go to public education. I don’t see why colleges should be any different. At the very least community colleges.


Probably because colleges and universities are for profit businesses.

[TheEschaton]

So is war.

[Parkbandit]

We should just hug and the sunshine will come out and everything will be better.

[TheEschaton]

I'm glad to see I've finally convinced you.

[Some Rogue]

It must be a flashback to his pot smoking days at a shitty college.

[sst]

So is war.

Well, it would suck if you came out behind in the end of a war, kinda makes it pointless.

We need to start Sacking cities again.

[Warriorbird]

I like it when Dave posts. It makes us look better.

:)

[Sean of the Thread]

I agree with dave actually. Pussy footing around in a war is sure way to suck.

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/union-generals/sherman/pictures/general-william-tecumseh-sherman.jpg

[Gan]

We should just hug and the sunshine will come out and everything will be better.


I'm glad to see I've finally convinced you.

.

http://www.rosiesmosie.com/care-bear.jpg